I'm pretty sure this is actually the most important election in my lifetime.

Forum's pretty slow today. Allow me to speed things up with a super-wide view of the current political landscape.

You can thank me later.

I never like the idea of saying "this is the most important election of my lifetime" because it feels to hyperbolic. The only time I actually felt that way was during 2004 in the middle of the Bush presidency, but the Bush presidency gave way to the Obama administration, which is starting to unwind a bunch of the things I considered the Bush administration to have screwed up (the wars, the recession, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare's financial unsustainability). So it's pretty clear I overreacted in 2004. If only I had been a ChiefsPlanet poster then so you all could mock me for it.

All the other elections just seemed to be very important, because you can do a lot of things in 4 years when you've got the White House on your side.

The reason I think this election is so important, however, is because I don't think this election is about the next four years. I think the next decade of policy rests on this election's shoulders.

Obama was and is a game changer, politically. He represents the nation's fresh breath of anti-neoconservativism that the nation felt it needed in 2008 after Bush. Obama is unabashedly liberal, but incredibly charismatic and likeable (hardcore conservatives don't feel this way, but I assure you the polling has always suggested that everybody else does). The moment we elected him to was huge, as well, putting him right behind the 8 ball with the wars and the economy, a situation which clearly set him up for an extremely difficult four years.

If he is able to win reelection, it's possible that this country could face a true electoral realignment of Reagan proportions (or maybe even greater) within the next decade, the realignment that Rove so desperately wanted for Bush in 2004 but failed to achieve. I'm talking about a realignment that fundamentally changes the way the vast majority of the population views these two political parties.

I've written about this a lot on this forum, but I predict that no matter who wins the election in 2012, unemployment will drop like a rock in 2014 as the job openings/job applicant mismatches start to vanish and the pool of applicants adapt to all the job openings. Again, this is despite Obama or Romney being President.

But assume it is Obama. Then you're talking about, at the conclusion of 2016, a presidency that would have presided over a gradual but successful recovery from the worst recession in our and our parents' lifetimes, withdrawals from both wars in the Middle East, the killing of OBL, the passing and now implementation of full healthcare reform, and at least three SCOTUS judges... Even without Republican cooperation in Obama's second term, all these things would happen, with the only significant question mark being the unemployment situation, which I do believe will recover like gangbusters in a couple years.

If all these things happen, the contrast of the past two decades will be unbelievably stark in 2016: you can do it the Democratic way, like the charistmatic and successful Obama and Clinton admistrations did, and preside over successful economies and sane foreign policy, or you can do it the Republican way, like... George W. Bush.

Combine that with the demographic changes this country will be going over the next decade (Texas could genuinely become a swing state by 2020, for starters), and I believe we could be facing a realignment.

I think this would be especially likely if Hillary were to run in 2016. Barring a complete shitfit, she couldn't lose, running on the records of Obama and Clinton, who would both extensively campaign for her, giving her a 3-to-1 advantage over whomever the Republicans trot out. Thinking of what she could accomplish in the wakes of what these two Presidents have laid for her in terms of policy foundations, is mind boggling.

The Republican Party, in the face of this, would absolutely have to evolve from their current exclusivity, their current regressive tax policies, and embrace something more inclusive, more moderate, and less reactionary. More conservative, less reactionary regressive. And then you'd finally have the post-Boomer conversation about the true value of liberalism and conservativism that this nation has lost since the Vietnam war embedded the Boomer population in a decades-long culture war. This development would change the entire dynamic, and provide those weird things like "hope" and "change" that we've ridiculed for five years.

On the other hand, what if the Republicans win? Romney/Ryan '12.

Most of Obama's accomplishments would obviously be trashed. Healthcare reform would either be outright repealed, or simply not enforced and de-fanged until it could no longer accomplish much of anything. The Democratic goal of bringing back the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy would be a thing of the past; in fact, Romney and Ryan would move the offensive forward, attempting to bring their tax rates down even lower. The landmark regulations for the financial industry passed under Obama would almost certainly be neutered to the point of irrelevancy, in particular Consumer Protection.

But even more than his policies, the idea of what Obama represented would be defeated. The idea of providing more for the less fortunate, for collectivism and the social safety net, would suffer irreperable harm as Romney and Ryan get to benefit from an employment boom in 2014, something they will understandably take credit for and the public will understandably reward them for, embedding in the public psyche the idea that regressive policies somehow accounted for all of this, and cementing trickle-down economics as vindicated once and for all.

And while Ryan seems very green now, assuming Romney wins reelection, Ryan would be a powerful candidate under this philosophy in 2020 running against whomever the Democrats could put up. By then, barring any huge screwups or scandals by the Romney administration, the conversation between conservativism and liberalism would almost certainly vanish, and instead be between conservativism and libertarian regressivism.

You're talking about two radically different futures for the next decade-plus, one with generational realignment possibilities in my opinion.

All of it sparked from one election.

That's why I think this could be the most important election in our lifetimes.

How old are you DC? I lived through the social wars. That was a horrible time in USA.
nothing to do with the upcoming election. I just got permission.

I'm 40. What social wars tore this country apart? We are still here aren't we? That's my point. Republicans being elected nor more conservative judges being appointed to the SC is gonna tear the country apart. Smells like fear mongering to me. Just in time for the vote...

If everything is "sent back to the States", this country will resemble Europe in no time.

Mississipi won't have an abortion clinic in sight, Texas will be a conceal and carry state, California will legalize EVERYTHING, including illegal immigrants, and so on.

The Federal Government is what keeps this nation together.

you do realize these three things are already true... right?

...except the whole Cali thing on immigrants. that is clearly a federal issue and no one wants that kicked back to the states... even Arizona would rather have the Feds do their job, they just feel that isn't happening.

btw.. if it hasn't been mentioned... Paul Ryan recently said he'd keep the Feds out of the whole "medical marijuana" issue and states that pass those laws would be left alone, unlike what is happening under Obama.

To some degree, I agree. But if "everything" was sent back to the states, much like the Tea Party wants, it would be far more exaggerated.

Going from New York to Arizona would be like going to a different country. Same could be said for states like Idaho, Kansas (kind of already is, IMO), etc.

Nah, I seriously doubt it.

#1 No one, not even the Tea Party want EVERYTHING kicked back... just all the stuff not covered by the Constitution. You know, that pesky document that we used to use as a guide... I have no problem with changing things... but that requires Amendments... when did it become ok to just ignore the process?

#2 when was the last time you were in Europe... it's not as different country to country as it once was.

#3 you are underselling the MASSIVE influence of pop culture and mass media. Regionalization is dying out regardless... at MOST you simply slow down the process some.

#1 No one, not even the Tea Party want EVERYTHING kicked back... just all the stuff not covered by the Constitution. You know, that pesky document that we used to use as a guide... I have no problem with changing things... but that requires Amendments... when did it become ok to just ignore the process?

Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have both stated they want to change the Constitution in order to make it more in "God's Image".

Many Republican representatives want to do the same. There is intent. And where there's intent, there's a will and a way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

#2 when was the last time you were in Europe... it's not as different country to country as it once was.

2008. And people hated ****ing George Bush. Furthermore, the people I spoke to felt that ALL Americans supported Bush, which of course, couldn't be further from the truth.

In respect to your assertion, I do believe that Germany, Italy and England have different perspectives than countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Benelux, France and of course, Greece.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

#3 you are underselling the MASSIVE influence of pop culture and mass media. Regionalization is dying out regardless... at MOST you simply slow down the process some.

I don't think that's true in poorer states like Mississippi or rural states like Kansas, Nebraska, etc. Everyone thinks of Omaha or KCK or OP, etc. when in reality, once you're out in the middle of nowhere, everything is very, very different.

How else can you explain the fact that no one visited Kansas because everyone knew Rick Santorum and his whacky, ****ed up ideas, would win the state regardless?

__________________My name is Clay. I am a clueless moron when it comes to evaluating football talent. I thought that Pat Mahomes was unworthy of being drafted in the first round, also, I wanted Geno Smith first overall. I also claimed that tyreek hill was undeserving of even being in the CFL. I am wrong 20x more than I'm right and I will troll this site with my uneducated football takes.

Unless Barry finds a way to create a couple million jobs in the next two months he's as good as done.

__________________My name is Clay. I am a clueless moron when it comes to evaluating football talent. I thought that Pat Mahomes was unworthy of being drafted in the first round, also, I wanted Geno Smith first overall. I also claimed that tyreek hill was undeserving of even being in the CFL. I am wrong 20x more than I'm right and I will troll this site with my uneducated football takes.

You are lazy pieces of shit. Not you two specifically, but everyone. The mindset that is being advocated here.

Direckshun's post is 2.25 pages in Microsoft Word, or 4 pages double-spaced. It's barely over 1,000 words. That isn't a whole lot of effort you lazy mother****ers. No one has "too much time" to write 1,000 words. ****ing middle schoolers can write 1,000 words. 1,000 words is not a lot.

Why the Hell are you even posting to a politics subforum if no subject is worth a paltry 1,000 words?

I'm ticked off because we just got done having a spat about how the level of discourse here in D.C. should be better or whatever. And here's a thread that should have sparked some worthwhile discussion. And instead we've got a bunch of bullshit, and me bitching about it. Yeah, Direckshun's biases are known. Newsflash: all of our biases are known on this board.

I don't actually believe that we're all just talking at each other on this board. There is some talking to each other. Some people's minds can be changed.

I mean, speaking personally, I've actually become more politically conservative in certain ways, thanks to this board, than I was when I joined. There can be real, valuable exchanges of ideas in this subforum. It's a shame that y'all think that it isn't worthwhile to try.